Lessons in Futility
To refer to a further point of our discussion, namely, my criticism of the Government policy regarding terrorist attacks, in response to which I was taken to task for accusing the Government of collusion with the terrorists, which is, of course, entirely untrue. My criticism was only that the same policy of meekness and subservience pervades many departments of the Government.
The Rebbe
As the fate of the hostages still lies in balance, the Jewish nation remains torn between negotiation and counterattack. Over 40 years ago, in a letter to a British businessman Peter Kalms (printed here last week), the Rebbe refuted the similarly hollow arguments of “land for peace.” The Avner Institute presents the follow-up of the Mr. Kalms’ conversations with Jewish and world leaders, and the Rebbe’s response as to the dangerous failures of their outcomes.
Dedicated in memory of loving memory of Hadassah Lebovic A”h
“These hopes have not materialized”
In an article published in October 1980, Chief Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits linked Lubavitch, Meir Kahane and Gush Emunim as extremists. Together with a group of friends, British businessman and Chabad supporter Peter (Pinchas Meir) Kalms wrote to protest, and the Chief Rabbi responded quite aggrieved, claiming that his statements were justified, particularly with regard to giving back the territories. He also stated that despite a long record of activity in defense of Lubavitch, he had nevertheless been the victim of Lubavitch-inspired attacks.
Mr. Kalms sent this letter to the Rebbe, and there followed a very detailed correspondence—more than 19 pages from the Rebbe in over 6 letters—which extended from November 1980 until February 1982. In a letter dated 3rd night of Chanukah 5741 (Dec. 5, 1980) he Rebbe explained in detail the basis of his conclusions and also sought to resolve the Chief Rabbi’s claims about Lubavitch hostility.
In a letter written 14 Sivan, 5741 [June 16, 1981], Peter Kalms had an audience with the Rebbe in which the Rebbe asked if there were any further developments in this matter. The following letter and interview are excerpted from Mr. Kalms’ book where he recounts this audience.
Kalms: Is there any progress regarding the correspondence with Rabbi Jakobovits?
Rebbe: I have been very busy over the last few weeks and have not yet had a chance to reply, which I will do shortly, but during this time, there have been many articles confirming my stand. The real reason is that every day there is a new confirmation of my suspicion of the “treason” from Camp David. Every day I wait I have more clippings.
Next week I will write a letter not to his liking…he was so upset that I said that terrorists were not brought to judgment. There has been an official bulletin that the search for Dr. [Auschwitz doctor Josef] Mengele was stopped in the middle by order of Ben Gurion, and he is free until now. It is known to many officials, because of the elections, the Government doesn’t want to put on pressure if it can harm relations with Australia, Washington, or the PLO. As for personal attacks, the only organization not protesting his statements was Lubavitch. The Aguda also protested after he had written, I don’t know who misinformed him, it was obvious to everyone.
By the Grace of G-d
In the Days of Selichoth,
5741, Year of Hakhel.
Brooklyn, N. Y.
Mr. Pinchus Meir Kalms
London
Greeting and Blessing:
With the approach of Rosh Hashanah, the Beginning of the New Year, may it bring blessings to us all, I send you and all yours my prayerful wishes for a good and happy year, materially and spiritually.
With the traditional blessing of ketiva vechasima tova.
Cordially,
M. Schneerson
P.S. Enclosed is a confidential copy of my latest letter to the Chief Rabbi shlita.
P.PS. This P.S. follows in English, consistent with our previous correspondence on the subject, which was conducted in English. Now that we are in the month of Elul, the month of “stocktaking,” I can no longer delay my response to some points in our correspondence, which are as yet unanswered. The reason for the delay being that I had hoped that there would be some positive developments that would have a bearing on them. Regrettably, these hopes have not materialized; indeed, the situation has further deteriorated.
Forbidden by Law
To begin with the basic point, namely, the question of returning the liberated areas of Yehuda, Shomron, etc. I maintain, as I have insisted from the beginning, that according to Halacha it is forbidden to return any of these territories. The same applies to the vital oil wells in Sinai, which should not have been surrendered. The claim that “for the sake of peace” it is halachically justifiable to surrender the territories and the oil wells, is hollow, for what was gained was not real lasting peace, but the promise of peace on paper, and from past and present experience, it is well known what such paper promises are worth.
Since the surrender of the oil wells is now a fait accompli and the consequences have already become quite evident, it can well serve as an illustration of the fallacious and misguided arguments that had been employed in regard also to the other points of the controversy.
When I quoted that the war specialists warned that surrendering the oil wells meant giving up a most vital resource, both in time of peace and, even more so, in time of emergency, and that it would create a serious stranglehold both on the economy and security of the land, the answer was, firstly, that there was a three months’ reserve of oil (a physical impossibility in the prevailing circumstances. Since oil cannot be compressed, a small (territorially) country like Eretz Yisroel cannot possibly provide storage space for such a large quantity of oil reserves, either underground or in surface tanks.)
And, secondly, a promise from the other side to supply all the petroleum needs. Yet, soon after the surrender of the oil wells, emissaries had to be dispatched to Mexico and elsewhere in a frantic effort to obtain oil (at inflated prices and costly transportation).
More recently, it was necessary to negotiate contracts for the importation of coal from distant countries (South Africa, Australia). This further emphasizes the seriousness of the energy situation in Eretz Yisroel.
Similarly, shortly before the current visit of the P.M. and his entourage to Washington, a personal friend of mine, who spoke to a personal friend of his, one who actively participated in all the Camp David negotiations, and will participate in the upcoming Washington discussions, and stated quite clearly that serious mistakes had been made in signing the treaty, since the same objective (normalization, etc.) could have been obtained without surrendering all that has been surrendered, the latter replied (verbatim): ”Let’s not go further into it,” and added that ways and means are now being explored to move away from that policy, etc.
Saying No
To refer to a further point of our discussion, namely, my criticism of the Government policy regarding terrorist attacks, in response to which I was taken to task for accusing the Government of collusion with the terrorists, which is, of course, entirely untrue. My criticism was only that the same policy of meekness and subservience pervades many departments of the Government. I could mention a
few recent events to support my contention but will cite only two.
First, while it has long been common knowledge, though not discussed publicly, it was recently publicized in the media that in his time, B.G. gave a directive to stop the search for Dr. Mengele (yimach shmo—may his name be blotted out) right when the search had become intensive.
Secondly, even more recently, the controversy in connection with the excavations in the City of David. There is no need to point out what the attitude and treatment shown by the police, with the backing of higher-ups, has been towards the demonstrators against this desecration. Yet, when there was an Arab demonstration in another place, but in a similar situation (the newly discovered tunnel under Temple Mount), further exploration was immediately stopped. No further commentary is necessary.
Another recent development bore out a view I expressed during the Yom Kippur War. I urged then, on the basis of Halacha, to pursue the enemy) Deut. 20:20; and see also Num. 33:55), namely, to take Damascus—not for occupation, but to ensure that it “never” again would pose a threat. It was then also common knowledge that Soviet advisors were present there, with headquarters, etc. Only a few hours of occupation would have been sufficient to accomplish the task.
But for “strange” reasons, it was not done. The results of the failure are evident, and have been particularly underscored recently by the moving of the Soviet SAM’s, and the military actions that were necessary to counter Soviet penetration, including the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq (though the latter actions shows a salutary departure from the policy of appeasement and subservience).
To receive to your inbox email: [email protected]
